OK so what do I do about this?

[sashh]

So I contacted Coventry Building Society about them not having the word 'sex' in their equality statement, this is the answer.

Hi sashh, this is a topic we take seriously and we welcome a diversity of views.
Our statement isn't in place to replicate the Equality Act, but just gets across our ambition in this space in what we believe is more straightforward language than the legal definition.
We've used 'gender' here as a more commonly used term that includes everyone, taking into account other examples across society where it's used, such as the Gender Pay Gap or the UN Sustainable Development Goal on Gender Equality.
Many thanks

CSC - CUSTOMER SUPPORT TELEPHONES

Post edited by MNHQ

Replacing a specific term for an amorphous one is less straightforward not less.
You could start there.

'ambition' in terms of the law is a massive red flag.

Maybe tell them that they are required to follow the law and their statement should reflect that in order to reassure their customers that they both understand and comply with the equality act as currently on the statute books.

Are they Stonewalled?

They are not allowed to rewrite an Act of Parliament. The wording is specific for a reason. I guess they can expand the areas they want to protect, but they can't reduce them just because they don't agree with the legal definition.

Our statement isn't in place to replicate the Equality Act, but just gets across our ambition in this space in what we believe is more straightforward language than the legal definition.

I wonder which other legal definitions they think should be replaced by 'straightforward language'.

Why do they think 'gender' includes everyone and 'sex' does not? Everyone has a sex. Not everyone subscribes to beliefs about 'gender'.

Tell them it’s not more straightforward and remove your business.

Basically what @Tallisker said. They don’t get to rewrite what the law says; sex & gender are not the same thing at all & that “ambitious” phrasing is pure stonewall “get ahead of the law” mendacity.

This only ever happens to the protected characteristic of sex. Can you imagine changing race/ethnicity with coloured or skin colour as that might be more straight forward? The wording if the Equality Act is perfectly straightforward. If their list looks like it is listing the protected characteristic then it should follow that. If not they need to make it clear they are not listing the projected characteristics.

Everyone has a biological sex but not everyone buys into the idea of gender identity. The former is a protected characteristic, the latter is not, and they should not be mashed together.

I used those words at work recently, as in "everyone has a sex, whether they like it or not, but not everyone has a gender"

Thank you all, I will formulate a reply.

I just want to say how happy it makes me that women across the UK are tackling these "woke" (asleep) organisations. I think each one of us who has the time should choose one and keep chivvying away at them until they do the right thing.

There is a bit of a problem here as the UN is obviously as concerned with the rest of the world that's not the rich west where gender oppression still does refer to the sex you were born resulting him how you're treated. Mainly use and abuse and oppression of women.

Quite a lot of UN documents and policies and research do discuss discrimination based on gender as sex. Mainly as in many countries gender stereotypes are incredibly rigid. As a girl you won't be educated etc

The way they're written though it's very clear they mean sex.

I'd look up the documents they've mentioned to get context first of where the author of the email is coming from. U.K. equalities law is different as mentions sex and then gender reassignment - and she seems to know this. But does she really know what it means?

So you need to work out what exactly they're talking about (eg do they mean gender pay gap?? Or could they say discrimination based on sex or pregnancy/maternity?) and point out where they've mucked up.

Hmmm

Our statement isn't in place to replicate the Police and Criminal Evidence Act but just gets across our ambition in this space in what we believe is more straightforward language than the legal definition.

I don't think so.

Maybe ask her to send you their thoughts on how they amend the law on banking fraud, tax evasion, money laundering and investment fraud? Presumably they'll have amended all those pesky legal definitions?

It's the tone deaf arrogance that's so exasperating.

OK here goes - any comments gratefully received before I send it?

Dear Clair,
I don’t think you appreciate the problem. Everyone has a sex, not everyone has a gender. Sex discrimination is defined in law, and your diversity statement should reflect the law. Coventry Building Society can add their own criteria (and I was pleasantly surprised that you have policies for supporting carers and women going through the menopause) but you cannot remove a legally defined characteristic as defined by the Equality Act, in fact you cannot change any piece of legislation.

The fact you have removed a legal definition is worry to me and many others. If you can remove a legal definition from this can you do the same with legal terms such as fraud or money laundering? You would not even consider it would you?

Why is sex the only protected characteristic, as defined by the Equality Act, that has been removed? Would you remove ‘race’ because you think the term, person of colour’ is more inclusive?

In addition, how do you handle the different needs of trans customers and employees? Services such as toilets in a work place are legally defined under the HASAW Act as being for male and female, these are designations based on sex.

Do you force a trans women to use the male toilets rather than a women’s or unisex bathroom? You cannot allow them to use the women’s toilet because that is not the toilet of their sex.
I am a disabled woman, I do not expect either to be held against me as a customer or as a potential employee. In order to reassure your customers that you both understand and comply with the equality act as currently on the statute books you cannot remove any characteristic you don’t like the look of.
Incidentally what does, “gets across our ambition in this space” actually mean? What space? The workplace? ‘Ambition’, surely obeying the law is not an ‘ambition’ but a basic expectation.
The wording if the Equality Act is perfectly straightforward. If your list looks like it is listing the protected characteristic, then it should follow that. If not you need to make it clear they are not listing the projected characteristics.

I wouldn't bring 'trans' or 'toilets' into it. Keep focus on the protected characteristics.

Maybe ask them to explain clearly what sex has to do with gender to the point that they have decided to replace 'sex' with 'gender'? What is the relationship between sex and gender? One is a fixed aspect of a body, biologically, and one is about identity and feeling. It would be good for them to set out how they believe they relate to each other.

Ah no. COV Buildo has fallen for the bullshit. How disappointing.

I think the main point I would challenge them on is that we know women, especially, are discriminated against on the basis of their SEX (e.g. less likely to be hired/promoted due to perceived risk of getting pregnant, more at risk of sexual assault/harassment at work, the pay gap, more likely to be stereotyped and given menial tasks, female academics reviewed more harshly by students and expected to do more emotional labour,...) - whereas there is NO evidence that people are discriminated against based on their GENDER specifically, when this is separated out from "sex discrimination by another name" and "gender reassignment" discrimination (e.g. genuine transphobia). After all, if you can't know someone's "gender" without asking them (according to the believers), then how can you be discriminating based on "gender" unless you go round asking people how they identify before you harass or underpay them? Unless there's evidence that TW are less likely to be hired because of being seen as women rather than because of being trans or coming across badly in other ways, for example, when this happens it is SEX discrimination not gender. (For that matter, if it happened because they were genuinely mistaken for women, it would also not necessarily qualify as gender discrimination, as it would then be sex discrimination based on mistaken perception - just as it's illegal to discriminate against someone because you think they're trans, even if you got it wrong).

I also think the bit about "forcing" TW to use men's toilets is a bit unclear/comes across wrong - the main point surely is that female toilets should be for females only, but if single unisex or gender-neutral toilets are ALSO available, surely that's not a problem and we shouldn't need to force anyone to use specific provision of they don't want to, as long as they aren't using facilities they are NOT entitled to (e.g. opposite sex, or non-disabled people using facilities for the disabled).

OK latest version - thanks for the input, any comments again gratefully received before I send it?

Dear Clair,
I don’t think you appreciate the problem. Everyone has a sex, not everyone has a gender. Sex discrimination is defined in law, and your diversity statement should reflect the law. Coventry Building Society can add their own criteria (and I was pleasantly surprised that you have policies for supporting carers and women going through the menopause) but you cannot remove a legally defined characteristic as defined by the Equality Act, in fact you cannot change any piece of legislation.
Can you explain to me how and why you have decided to replace 'sex' with 'gender'? What is the relationship between sex and gender?
One is a fixed aspect of a body, biologically, and one is about identity and feeling and something not all people have.
The fact you have removed a legal definition is worry to me and many others. If you can remove a legal definition from this can you do the same with legal terms such as fraud or money laundering? You would not even consider it would you?
Why is sex the only protected characteristic, as defined by the Equality Act, that has been removed? Would you remove ‘race’ because you think the term, person of colour’ is more inclusive?
we know women, especially, are discriminated against on the basis of their SEX (e.g. less likely to be hired/promoted due to perceived risk of getting pregnant, more at risk of sexual assault/harassment at work, the pay gap, more likely to be stereotyped and given menial tasks, female academics reviewed more harshly by students and expected to do more emotional labour, whereas there is NO evidence that people are discriminated against based on their GENDER specifically, when this is separated out from "sex discrimination by another name" and "gender reassignment" discrimination. You can't know someone's "gender" without asking them so how can you be discriminating based on "gender" unless you go round asking people how they identify before you harass or underpay them?
I am a disabled woman who does not have a gender, I do not expect these things to be held against me as a customer or as a potential employee. In order to reassure your customers that you both understand and comply with the equality act as currently on the statute books you cannot remove any characteristic you don’t like the look of.
Incidentally what does, “gets across our ambition in this space” actually mean? What space? The workplace? ‘Ambition’, surely obeying the law is not an ‘ambition’ but a basic expectation.
The wording if the Equality Act is perfectly straightforward. If your list looks like it is listing the protected characteristic, then it should follow that. If not you need to make it clear they are not listing the projected characteristics.

I would prune that;

Dear Clair,
Sex discrimination is defined in law, and your diversity statement should reflect the law.
Coventry Building Society can add their own criteria (and I was pleasantly surprised that you have policies for supporting carers and women going through the menopause) but you cannot remove a legally defined characteristic as defined by the Equality Act, in fact you cannot change any piece of legislation.
The wording if the Equality Act is perfectly straightforward. If your list looks like it is listing the protected characteristic, then it should follow that. If not you need to make it clear they are not listing the projected characteristics.

Did you send it, @sashh ?

If you haven’t done so yet, then I’d be in agreement with TheInebriati that short and to the point is better.

Good luck. Hope you get a better response.

Yrs I sent it, but by email rather than their poor messaging service.